Trump's daily Iran video briefing fuels concerns he's not getting a full picture on the war

WASHINGTON — Each day since the start of thewar in Iran, U.S. military officials compile a video update for President Donald Trump that shows video of the biggest, most successful strikes on Iranian targets over the previous 48 hours, three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official said.

The daily montage typically runs for about two minutes, sometimes longer, the officials said. One described each daily video as a series of clips of "stuff blowing up."

The highlight reel of U.S. Central Command bombing Iranian equipment and military sites isn't the only briefing Trump gets about the war. He's also updated through conversations with top military and intelligence advisers, foreign leaders and news reports, the officials said.

But the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump's allies that he may not be receiving — or absorbing — the complete picture of the war, now in its fourth week, two of the current officials and the former official said.

They said the videos are also driving Trump's increasing frustration with news coverage of the war. Trump has pointed to the success depicted in the daily videos to privately question why his administration can't better influence the public narrative, asking aides why the news media doesn't emphasize what he's seeing, one of the current U.S. officials and the former U.S. official said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt rejected the notion that Trump doesn't receive information about the full range of developments in the war, both successes and setbacks.

"That's an absolutely false assertion coming from someone who has not been present in the room," Leavitt said in a statement. "Anyone who has been present for conversations with President Trump knows he actively seeks and solicits the opinions of everyone in the room and expects full throated honesty from all of his top advisors."

Chief Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement: "Operation Epic Fury has been an overwhelming success, with our forces executing the mission with unmatched precision and achieving every objective set out from the beginning. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is in constant communication with President Trump regarding every aspect of Operation Epic Fury. We are proud of the exceptional performance by our warfighters and remain fully confident in the commander-in-chief's decisions."

One of the U.S. officials said that while discussions about sensitive military operations are limited to a smaller group, Trump continues to solicit input broadly and encourages every participant to weigh in candidly. The official added that Trump frequently takes calls from a broad range of outside advisers, regularly hearing how they feel and getting their perspectives on public opinion.

Public opinion about the war remains sharply divided along partisan lines, according toNBC News pollingthis month, though a majority of voters oppose Trump's handling of it.

Within Trump's Make America Great Again movement, however, support is overwhelming: Self-identified MAGA respondents gave a 100% approval rating for Trump, with 90% supporting his military action in Iran.

The question of how a president consumes information, particularly negative developments, and what details are shared by aides can be particularly acute during wartime. For any president, aides have historically had to balance providing a full picture of events and emphasizing successes on core objectives.

During previous wars — from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan — administrations were accused of succumbing to "groupthink" when they briefed the president, with officials and military commanders downplaying or omitting inconvenient facts and refusing to recognize signs that their strategy was failing.President Lyndon Johnson complainedthat American television news coverage of the Vietnam conflict was misleading and overly negative, and George W. Bush's administrationaccuse journalistsof focusing on car bombs instead of on progress in rebuilding Iraq.

The current and former U.S. officials said the military can't brief Trump on every strike — there are hundreds every day — and so the curated video, while it showcases U.S. capabilities, doesn't reflect the full scope of the conflict.

"We can't tell him every single thing that happens," a current U.S. official said. The official noted that Trump's briefings tend to draw better feedback from his aides when they focus on U.S. victories.

Overall, the official said, the information Trump gets about the war tends to emphasize U.S. successes, with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions.

One example came this month when five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were hit in an Iranian strike at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, according to one of the current U.S. officials. Trump wasn't briefed about the strikes, and he learned what had happened from media reports, the official said. When Trump inquired, he was told the planes weren't badly damaged, the official said.

The official said Trump reacted angrily behind the scenes to the news coverage. Publicly he posted on Truth Social calling coverage of the strike misleading and accusing media organizations of wanting the U.S. "to lose the War."

Advertisement

Leavitt defended Trump's criticism of the media.

"Trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low and their overwhelming negative and biased coverage of Operation Fury, which has been a massive success, proves why the president is rightfully frustrated," Leavitt said in a statement. "The media spends more time using fake anonymous sources to sow chaos than focus on the successes and victories of our great United States military against the Iranian regime."

Some of Trump's allies view his frustration as a sign of a constrained flow of information, two of the current U.S. officials and the former U.S. official said.

Among their concerns is that Trump may not be equipped to make critical decisions about options he's presented with for possible next steps in the war if he's not receiving a full scope of information about the status of the conflict, the former official and a person familiar with the concerns said.

Some of Trump's allies have sought to provide him with additional context, including possible scenarios for how the conflict could evolve and options for winding it down, to broaden the range of perspectives reaching him, according to the former official and the person familiar with the concerns. Recently, some of them tried to bring new polling to Trump's attention, showing his approval rating sinking several points since the war began, according to the person familiar with the concerns.

Since the war began Feb. 28, Trump has been both shaping and consuming a steady stream of news about it. He has taken dozens of phone calls from journalists, explaining his positions and hinting at next steps. He maintains regular contact with foreign leaders, including holding near-daily conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he has frequent discussions with leaders of Persian Gulf states, officials said.

And he has publicly acknowledged seeking information independently.

Last week Trump said that he called a top military general after he saw video of the USS Abraham Lincoln in flames and that the general told him Iran fabricated the video using artificial intelligence.

"I called the general. I said, 'General, what's with the Abraham Lincoln, it looks like it's burning down?'" Trump said at a lunch for Kennedy Center board members. He said the general told him: "'No, it's not burning down. Not a bullet was ever fired at it, sir. They know better.'"

One of the U.S. officials said that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been targeted multiple times since the war began but that the strikes have either failed to reach the ship or have been intercepted.

Trump also said he had seen fabricated video of "buildings in Tel Aviv burning to the ground," as well as in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. "And they weren't burning," he said. "They weren't hit. It was all AI."

Asked for comment on the briefings Trump receives about the war, National Intelligence DirectorTulsi Gabbard's office pointed to her testimony to Congresslast week, when she told lawmakers that she and other intelligence officials "continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions."

The director of public affairs at the CIA, Liz Lyons, summarized in a statement congressional testimony from CIA Director John Ratcliffe last week, saying he told lawmakers, "President Trump is constantly briefed by his national security advisors and provided with the best intelligence available to provide a decisive strategic advantage in making policy decisions."

Ratcliffe said at a congressional hearing last week that he briefs Trump about 10 to 15 times a week on important national security issues.

Gabbard and Ratcliffe also testified that the White House received intelligence assessments before the war that, if it was struck, Iran would be likely to retaliate with attacks on energy sites in the Middle East and threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, with possible fallout for oil prices and the global economy. But Trump suggested last week that Iran's reaction came as a surprise and that "no expert" predicted such a response.

Concerns about the war among some Trump supporters surfaced publicly last week when Joe Kent, who until recently led the National Counterterrorism Center, said internal gatekeeping had limited Trump's access to a wider range of dissenting views during the war. "A good deal of key decision-makers were not allowed to come express their opinion to the president," Kent told Tucker Carlson in an interview after he left the administration. "There wasn't a robust debate."

Leavitt wrote on social media at the time that Trump "had strong and compelling evidence" that led to his decision to strike Iran.

Days earlier, Trump was asked about comments by his former AI czar, David Sacks, who said on a podcast that the U.S. "should try to find the off ramp" and that "this is a good time to declare victory and get out." Trump told reporters that Sacks hadn't shared his views with him.

byAlpha World

in

March 25, 2026

Trump's daily Iran video briefing fuels concerns he's not getting a full picture on the war

WASHINGTON — Each day since the start of thewar in Iran, U.S. military officials compile a video update for President Don...

Read More

Oklahoma city council members welcomed a Google data center. Now they face a recall.

SAND SPRINGS, Okla.— City Manager Mike Carter kicked off 2026 with news he promised would bring jobs, money and prosperity to the 20,000 residents of this Tulsa suburb: Google was interested in building its newest AI data center on 827 acres of farmland just outside town.

Two weeks later, a group of local residents marched into City Hall with paperwork for a ballot measure to recall the entire City Council, including Mayor Jim Spoon. They had also filed a lawsuit.

Carter had braced for a backlash. He knew well from his time as the city's police chief what was likeliest to stir up otherwise friendly, law-abiding folks. "The toughest thing you will do is property issues," he advised the City Council.

And this was a property issue. Opponents of Google's Project Spring argue that the public has been left in the dark throughout the process, starting with annexation of land along Highway 97 into the city limits, so it could be connected to power lines. Kyle Schmidt, president of the Protect Sands Springs Alliance, and a team of volunteers are knocking on doors and collecting signatures for the recall campaign. "We don't have any other recourse," he said.

Though most recalls don't succeed, more communities are taking this radical step to try to fend off the AI construction boom. As tech giantsprepare to spendan estimated $700 billion on new data centers this year alone, residents have been torn between the prospect of jobs and tax revenue versus the environmental andquality-of-life costsof the AI boom.

At least five recall efforts targeted officials over their support for data centers since 2022. Organizers in Augusta Township, Michigan, aretrying to recallseven officials, including the town clerk and trustees, after their board voted to rezone land from agricultural to industrial for a future data center site. Last month, a group trying to boot the mayor in Port Washington, Wisconsin, over a planned $15 billion data centerfell shortin gathering enough signatures.

While none of those five recalls have yet made it to ballot, organizers in Sand Springs hope to be an exception.

So far, the group says it has roughly 50% of the nearly 5,000 signatures it would need across the city's six wards by March 31 to get the recalls on the ballot. Some residents told NBC News they aren't opposed to AI or development but don't think an agricultural area should be rezoned for the project when the city has an industrial zone already. "You cannot just keep it a secret from the whole town and then drop it in their laps," Schmidt said.

The city held information sessions about the project in January, before the City Council approved the rezoning in a 6-1 vote in February.

Last year, about 12% of recall targets were removed from office nationwide, according to ananalysis by Ballotpedia. Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at the University of California, Riverside, said being able to rally voters around a common cause at the local level can work in recall organizers' favor.

"It's a lot easier to get people mad at politicians than support them," he said.

Google didn't respond to questions about the recall. On its site outlining its data center plan,Project Spring, the company says the buildings would occupy less than 10% of the land and provide tax revenue that would shore up municipal budgets, all without straining the electrical grid or the water supply.

Not everyone in Sand Springs opposes the data center. In recent weeks, residents have received mailers from a group called Sandites for a Strong Future, urging voters not to sign on to the recall petition, calling that a nuclear option that would bring "Washington-style politics right here in Sand Springs."

Debates over the data center have frayed bonds in the close-knit city. Carter says he has had to shake off rumors that Google paid for his truck, while Schmidt's group has started advising supporters to put signs in front of doorbell cameras, alleging that some signs have disappeared.

Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, has studied the industry's impact on job creation. He compared the backlash to data centers to the revolt against Walmart in the 1990s, when opponents raised concerns over the retail giant's crowding out mom-and-pop businesses.

The fates of at least 20 data center projects worth an estimated $98 billion wereleft in doubtduring the second quarter of last year because of opposition and delays, according to Data Center Watch. "What I think has happened in a lot of places is that the data centers have come and overpromised all the good things to communities and really undersold the negative consequences," he said.

Rick Plummer moved to Sand Springs from California 23 years ago and raises quarter horses on his 165-acre ranch. The Google data center property is about 300 feet from his fence line.

"Hear that?" Plummer said after he parked his all-terrain vehicle near a creek on his land. "Nothing."

He said he is skeptical of planners' assurances that the Google development wouldn't be seen from the road and that its evening lighting would be limited. His wife, Missy Plummer, expects to hear a constant hum, even though Google has said the data center buildings will be set back far enough from the property's border to shield from industrial noise.

Plummer is concerned the operations will disturb his horses, while his real estate agent has warned him to be prepared for a seven-figure loss in property values. The data center site is several miles outside town. Neighbors of the property like the Plummers are residents of Osage County, not the city that annexed the land, and therefore can't vote in city elections.

Until February, the land was zoned for agriculture. Rezoning it as industrial felt like a betrayal, Plummer said: "Nobody protected the poor ag guy."

Advertisement

Plummer is part of a lawsuit challenging annexation. Plaintiffs argue that the official basis for expanding the city limits for the project relied on the property's touching a previous strip of land annexed in 1966. They allege an ordinance from the 1970s did away with that annexation decades ago. Lawyers for Sand Springs argued in filings that the plaintiffs don't have legal standing. No court date has been set.

On Monday, Land Legacy, a Tulsa-based conservation organization, filed another lawsuit that argues the project violates an agreement that landowners made not to use the property for industrial purposes.

Council member Mike Burdge, one of the targets of the recall, said that while it's true that county residents have no representation in city matters, it was within the property owner's rights to petition for it to be annexed for the data center project. (Alan and Susan Ringle, the owners, didn't respond to requests for comment.)

Burdge supports the data center because it will bring more industry and jobs back into the city. "We just keep getting retail and restaurants," he said. "I keep telling everybody we've got to have jobs."

Spoon, the mayor, said in a statement that the reasoning behind the recall campaign was false and misleading. Council members "have always acted in the best interest of the voters and the community that elected them," he wrote. The five other council members didn't respond to requests to comment.

At least 1,000 jobs are expected during the construction stage, city officials said, along with 200 permanent jobs. Google didn't respond to a request to confirm figures.

Some Sand Springs residents have sided with their more rural counterparts and have put up yard signs opposing the data center.

After having signed the recall petition, Sarah Nichols carried two signs she said she would put in her front yard. Nichols, 45, a stay-at-home mom, said she disapproved of the secrecy around the project.

She questioned how many of the outcomes officials were banking on were guaranteed.

"There needs to be a lot more serious questions asked," Nichols said. "And answered," her mother, Penny Thorngate, added.

At a veterans' breakfast across town, Nick Kallas, 78, who moved to Sand Springs four years ago to be closer to family, said he disagreed with the recall.

"That's going a little bit too far," he said. The prospect of more jobs and tax money for the community seems like a win for the town's future, he said.

Charley Pearson, 65, a Baptist deacon and cattle rancher in the community near the data center site, is also chief of the area's volunteer fire department. When Google made a $250,000 donation to the department, Pearson said, the board felt it had to decline — even though the sum was more than its annual budget.

The community's position was clear, he said. "For us to turn around and not to listen to them back, we would have been no better than Sand Springs," he said. His family owns 2,300 acres, including the house his grandparents built. They will never sell its land, he said.

"I just wish they would have handled it differently," Pearson said of the city's approach to the project. "I just wish they would have come and said something."

In a statement to NBC News,Google said it had "tremendous gratitude for the work" of volunteer fire departments, hospitals and schools. The company said its data centers support tools like maps that might be used by such organizations.

Back at City Hall, Carter said he is optimistic the data center project will proceed. The last recall attempt in 2010, spurred by an affordable housing complex, failed. Some of the opposition comes down to NIMBYism, people opposed to any project put on the table, he said. Complaints about nondisclosure agreements are misguided, he said, since they are standard practice — and were required to bring an Olive Garden to town. Still, the opposition and the negative attention are concerns.

Last fall, Google withdrew its application for a $1 billion data center in Indianapolis. A rezoning vote for the project was expected to fail. As with Project Spring, it had drawn local pushback.

In his time as city manager, Carter said, he has made an effort to address several concerns while shaking off those he finds baseless.

"You can't go and defend yourself against every insane comment you get on Facebook," he said.

At a recent recall petition drive, Christa Putnam, 53, a county resident and day care cook, spent the afternoon vigilant for any misprints that could disqualify or challenge a signature. She made sure signees spelled out Sand Springs, alongside their addresses, instead of abbreviating.

"I don't want them for neighbors," she said of Project Spring. "I'm sure they're nice people. But I'd rather them be in town."

byAlpha World

in

March 25, 2026

Oklahoma city council members welcomed a Google data center. Now they face a recall.

SAND SPRINGS, Okla.— City Manager Mike Carter kicked off 2026 with news he promised would bring jobs, money and prosperit...

Read More

Is America ready to tax the super‑rich? | The Excerpt

On the Wednesday, March 25, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast:America's wealth gap is exploding, with the top 0.1% pulling far ahead. As calls for a wealth tax grow louder, USA TODAY Personal Finance Reporter Daniel de Visé joins The Excerpt to break down what taxing the super‑rich could mean for the economy and for everyday Americans.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Dana Taylor:

Income inequality in the US is surging, reminiscent of the gilded age according to inequality.org, Project of the Institute for Policy Studies. According to the Congressional Budget Office between 1979 and 2021, the average income of the top 0.1% of households grew almost 27 times as fast as the bottom 20%, which brings me to a question being asked across the country today, should the very rich be subject to a special tax?

Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, March 25th, 2026. Joining me to discuss the possibility of a wealth tax is USA TODAY Personal Finance Reporter Daniel de Vise. It's so good to have you back on, Daniel.

Daniel de Visé:

Happy to be here.

Dana Taylor:

Daniel, give me an overview of how we got here. What spurred this national conversation about a wealth tax?

Daniel de Visé:

Well, we have progressive taxation in this country, which means people who earn more generally pay a higher amount of their earnings as tax at higher levels of earnings. But right now, compared with 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, the top tax rate, the rate you pay on the top, top income is lower than it's been in the past. Even during the Clinton years and in the '90s, there was a significantly higher marginal tax rate for people, the top earners than there is now.

President Trumphas made a big deal out of trying to push down tax rates, and his critics would say he's been especially pushing down tax rates for high earners. And then you have this whole world of capital gains, of gains on stocks basically. And the taxes on those are lower. And if you keep them in sort of tax favored accounts, as wealthy people do, you pay no taxes on them and you could potentially pass them to your heirs without any taxes being paid on them. So there is this sort of perpetuation of wealth. And yeah, it's true, the concentration of money among sort of billionaires now is as high as it's been probably in a hundred years.

Dana Taylor:

Okay. Let's dig into this starting with California. What's happening there?

Daniel de Visé:

There's a billionaire tax and it's out there. I mean, there's a bunch of wealth taxes going on around the country, more in blue states. But this is out there. It's an outlier. It would raise $100 billion supposedly through a one time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires. So what that means is if you're a suburban household and you have maybe a million dollars in net worth, that's not who's being taxed here, but just to give you an idea, you'd pay 50,000 bucks as a one-time tax.

Obviously, if that happened in my suburb in Maryland, all hell would break loose, pardon the French. But that's what this billionaire tax is. There's 200 billionaires apparently. Well, there's fewer than that now because a few of them have said they're leaving, but there were 200 billionaires and each of them would pay a one time 5% tax. It's a ballot measure, so it has to go through the process of collecting signatures. They're not all collected yet. If they do get, I think it's 900,000 signatures, it'll go on the ballot in November.

Dana Taylor:

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has a wealth tax bill on his desk ready to be signed into law right now. What's in that bill, Daniel?

Daniel de Visé:

So Washington State up to now does not have an income tax. So it's one of those states where you don't pay state income tax. But because of the governor was talking about the idea of rising wealth inequality in that state and elsewhere. So to sort of even the playing field, lawmakers there approved, it's about a 10%, 9.9% tax. This would be on income. So not on all of the assets of these wealthy people. It's on income over a million dollars. And you'll see a pattern in these wealth taxes in other states too, that generally, forget California for a minute. In other places, it's targeted income over a million dollars like for a household. So that means if you're a couple of high school teachers who each earn $100,000, you'd be nowhere near this. So it's half a percent of people in Washington state would pay about a 10% tax just on the portion of their income that's over a million dollars.

Dana Taylor:

One of New York mayors, Zohran Mamdani's signature pieces of proposed legislation is a wealth tax. What's the status of that bill?

Daniel de Visé:

Mamdani campaigned on the idea of taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers. This would again be those earning more than a million dollars a year in income and raising the tax ... There's already a tax on that income for New Yorkers, but raising it by two percentage points up to 5.9%. He said it would raise, I think, $4 billion a year. I think there's a budget deficit going on in New York.

The status of that is it hasn't happened yet. There's negotiations going on between Mamdani, who is of course now the mayor and the legislature in New York, which is generally, I think, a blue state, but a lot of the people in that legislature don't necessarily like the idea of taxing wealthy New Yorkers. There's this perpetual fear, and this goes across all of these wealth tax ideas that it will chase away the wealthy people that they will simply move rather than pay the tax.

Dana Taylor:

Advertisement

A wealth tax on income over a million was passed in Massachusetts in 2022. How many households were impacted there, Daniel, and what did the state use that money for?

Daniel de Visé:

I don't know the exact number. I'm going to guess it's probably 1% or less of the people who live in Massachusetts will be paying that 4% sur tax on income over a million dollars. That's a very wealthy state, but even so, very few people earn that much. It has brought in, I believe, about $6 billion, and this is important. There's not been much evidence of people leaving Massachusetts rather than pay that tax. This is important. I've looked at a lot of research into, do people flee ahead of a wealth tax? And it's kind of a newish area, but most of the research seems to suggest that wealthy people don't generally move because of a marginal increase in their taxes. They'll move for all sorts of reasons. And in California, this might be different because that tax is really an outlier. It's a big tax. But generally speaking, the research seems to show that wealthy people don't move just because you raise their taxes a little bit.

Dana Taylor:

As you know, Warren Buffett is well known for his advocacy of progressive taxation. What is the Buffett rule?

Daniel de Visé:

The Buffett rule, which I think President Obama actually put this forward, this would be that, again, it's this million dollar threshold of income that if you're earning more than that in a year, that you should be paying at least 30% of your income in federal taxes, which is way more than most people at that level pay. And so Warren Buffett's idea was that in effect, wealthy people aren't taxed at the same rate as just regular working people. And the reason gets into, again, investment income, which tends to be taxed at a lower rate, if at all. If you have millions of dollars in investments in some sort of tax favored like an IRA or something, you might pay very little taxes on those while they sit in those accounts.

Dana Taylor:

When he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Bernie Sanders advocated for wealth tax. Has any federal plan to tax the wealthy made any headway in Congress?

Daniel de Visé:

Well, I should note that Senator Sanders is in favor of the California wealth tax, and that's a divider because California's own governor, Gavin Newsom, who's a Democrat, is very much opposed to this billionaire tax. Sanders is in favor of it. It comes out of the unions in California. And typically, this is the sort of proposal that if Senator Senators puts it forward, not many people will support it. It certainly wouldn't pass right now in the current Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, but even a lot of Democrats are sort of wary of these things. I will say though that the public generally supports the idea of a wealth tax.

There was a poll done on this California billionaire tax, and I think about 50% of people polled who are voters in California said they support the idea of this massive tax on billionaires, and something like 28, 29% said they opposed it. Likewise, Gallup has found that about 12% of the citizenry thinks that rich people pay too much taxes already. So most people think they don't pay enough or pay the right amount.

Dana Taylor:

Daniel, what do critics of such a tax say?

Daniel de Visé:

The recurring criticism of all of these wealth taxes is that they will drive away the wealthy people. In other words, if Washington State or California or Massachusetts or New York, if any of those places taxes its wealthiest residents, those people who have means will simply move away. They'll move to Florida, they'll move to Texas rather than pay the tax.

Now, again, research shows it doesn't look like that many people actually do it, but it is harder for a state to get away with this sort of tax because if you're a state like California and you're asking your billionaires, Larry Page, Sergio Brin, to hand over 5% of their assets, there are 49 other states that California is competing with. And some of these folks, including those two guys, have indicated they will move. They can move. They have tons of money rather than pay this big, big one-time tax, they'll just move away. So that's the danger. And it'll be real interesting to see how it plays out if this California measure becomes law because it is an outlier and it's by far the most extreme wealth tax that's been yet proposed.

Dana Taylor:

What will you be watching for next on the wealth tax front?

Daniel de Visé:

Well, the interesting question is, first of all, whether this California measure gets anywhere, a lot of money is being spent against it by some very wealthy people, whether it gets on the ballot at all, whether a massive, massive sort of publicity campaign causes it to fall at the polls. And then if it becomes law, then to watch and see whether these 200 billionaires in California actually move. This will be the biggest test that we've had of this idea of a wealth tax. That's the big question.

Dana Taylor:

I wouldn't mind having these problems. Daniel de Vise is a personal finance reporter for USA TODAY. Thank you so much, Daniel.

Daniel de Visé:

Thank you for having me.

Dana Taylor:

Thanks to our senior producer, Kaely Monahan for her production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. I'll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:America's wealth gap is exploding. Should the rich pay more? | The Excerpt

byAlpha World

in

March 25, 2026

Is America ready to tax the super‑rich? | The Excerpt

On the Wednesday, March 25, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast:America's wealth gap is exploding, with the top 0.1%...

Read More

Top 6 Betting Picks for the Texas Children's Houston Open at Memorial Park

The PGA TOUR heads to Texas ahead of TheMasters, starting with the Texas Children's Houston Open at Memorial Park. This long par-70 layout rewards players who can drive it far and take advantage of scoring chances throughout the round.

With a 133-player field and a top-65-and-ties cut, there's still plenty of betting value to uncover.Scottie Schefflerwas expected to headline the field but withdrew, opening the door for others to step into the spotlight. Course history and strong iron play remain key here, and these six best bets are built to capitalize on a wide-open board at Memorial Park.

All odds are from DraftKings Sportsbook and are subject to change. DraftKings does not sponsor this content.

Davis Thompson Round 1 Leader (+6,900)

He's been much better on Thursdays this season and opened with a 66 at Valspar last week, showing he can go low early. His power off the tee is adequate enough Memorial Park, setting up ample of scoring chances. While he's less reliable over four rounds, his early-round scoring ability makes him a strong first-round leader target.

Marco Penge Top-20 Finish (+152)

Penge's elite power off the tee makes him a great fit for Memorial Park, where distance is a major advantage. He's also trending in the right direction after a T4 finish at Valspar. With his biggest strength lining up perfectly for this course, he has a strong chance to stay in contention and finish inside the top 20.

Kurt Kitayama Top-10 Finish (+230)

His power off the tee and consistent iron play make him a great fit for Memorial Park. He rarely loses strokes on approach, creating plenty of birdie opportunities. With solid recent form, he's trending in the right direction. If that continues, he has the tools to stay in contention and finish inside the top 10.

Advertisement

Chris Gotterup Top-5 Finish (+410)

His power off the tee fits Memorial Park perfectly, where distance is a huge advantage. He's already proven he can win this season and continues to rank among the best drivers on Tour. With improved results here and growing confidence, the upside is real. If he gets hot, he has the scoring ability to make a serious run at a top-five finish.

Michael Thorbjornsen to Win (+3,200)

His power off the tee is a perfect fit for Memorial Park, where distance is a major advantage. He's already shown he can contend in big events and continues to put himself in position. With less emphasis on wedge play and more on driving and scrambling, this setup plays to his strengths. If he keeps trending upward, this could be the week it all comes together.

Gary Woodland to Win (+9,400)

His game is trending in the right direction after a T14 finish at Valspar, and his power off the tee is a perfect fit for Memorial Park. He's already shown success here, including a runner-up finish last year. On a course that plays to his strengths, he can lean on his biggest weapon. If the momentum continues, he has the upside to make a serious run at a big number.

One-And-Done Play of the Week

If you play in a "one-and-done" league, the idea is simple: You get to use each golfer once all season, so picking the right spot matters.

Ryan Gerard is a great one-week option with a game that fits Memorial Park perfectly. His iron play has been excellent, especially on longer courses, and he's already proven he can handle this track with a top-10 finish here last year. He's also been consistent this season with multiple strong finishes. With his ball-striking and course comfort, he's a solid pick to deliver value this week.

Last Week's Result

Valspar: Sahith Theegala MC – $0Season Total: $2,464,089

This story was originally published byAthlon Sportson Mar 25, 2026, where it first appeared in theSports Bettingsection. Add Athlon Sports as aPreferred Source by clicking here.

byAlpha World

in

March 25, 2026

Top 6 Betting Picks for the Texas Children's Houston Open at Memorial Park

The PGA TOUR heads to Texas ahead of TheMasters, starting with the Texas Children's Houston Open at Memorial Park. Th...

Read More

6 DFS Fantasy Golf Picks for the Texas Children's Houston Open

Before the PGA TOUR heads to Augusta for TheMasters, the Texas swing kicks off with the Texas Children's Houston Open at Memorial Park. This long par-70 layout favors distance off the tee, with minimal rough and limited hazards allowing bombers to take advantage.

With a 133-player field and a top-65 cut (plus ties), finding the right DFS value is key. Course history matters here, and strong iron play and putting have consistently led to success. With big greens, tricky runoffs, and scoring opportunities on par 3s and 4s, targeting the right skill sets is crucial. These six DFS picks are built to capitalize on Memorial Park's unique layout and deliver strong lineup upside.

This article reveals my favorite target at each price level on DraftKings. DraftKings does not sponsor this content.

Chris Gotterup ($9,800)

Gotterup's power game fits Memorial Park perfectly, where distance is a major advantage. He's one of the longest hitters on Tour and has already shown winning upside this season. He's also had success on similar setups, including a solid finish here before. If he's swinging freely, this course gives him plenty of chances to score and deliver strong DFS value.

Brooks Koepka ($9,600)

Koepka's ball-striking has been sharp lately, and the putting is trending in the right direction. He's also very comfortable at Memorial Park after helping redesign the course with Tom Doak, giving him a unique edge. The layout fits his game well, especially off the tee and on approach. If he avoids the big mistakes, the upside is there for a strong DFS performance.

Advertisement

Michael Thorbjornsen ($8,600)

Thorbjornsen's power off the tee is a perfect fit for Memorial Park, where distance is a major advantage. He's shown he can contend in big spots and keeps putting himself in position to break through. With fewer demands on wedge play and more emphasis on driving and scrambling, this setup plays to his strengths. If he keeps trending upward, the upside for a strong DFS performance is definitely there.

Stephan Jaeger ($7,800)

Jaeger has a proven track record at Memorial Park, including a win in 2024 and multiple top-15 finishes, making this a great spot for him. His length off the tee and strong putting fit the course perfectly, and he's coming in with solid recent form after a T7 finish last week. With a game that matches the layout and confidence on this track, he offers both safety and upside for DFS lineups.

Jordan Smith ($7,400)

He's trending in the right direction with elite ball-striking and a breakout showing at Valspar, where he led the field in greens in regulation. His strength off the tee and on approach fits Memorial Park perfectly, a course that rewards strong drivers. He's proven he can compete at a high level and offers great DFS value. If the irons stay sharp, the upside is definitely there this week.

Seonghyeon Kim ($6,900)

Kim is coming in with solid momentum after a well-rounded T7 at Valspar, where he showed off improved putting and all-around scoring. He's been sharp across the board, ranking well in approach, birdies and around-the-green play. While his course history at Memorial Park is modest, his current form stands out. If the putter stays hot, he offers strong DFS value with the ability to quietly climb the leaderboard.

This story was originally published byAthlon Sportson Mar 25, 2026, where it first appeared in theSports Bettingsection. Add Athlon Sports as aPreferred Source by clicking here.

byAlpha World

in

March 25, 2026

6 DFS Fantasy Golf Picks for the Texas Children's Houston Open

Before the PGA TOUR heads to Augusta for TheMasters, the Texas swing kicks off with the Texas Children's Houston Open...

Read More